United States v. Russell
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
600 F.3d 631 (2010)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Mark Russell (defendant) worked as an applied systems engineer at Johns Hopkins University for 10 years before becoming unemployed. Russell held a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering and a master’s degree in strategic intelligence. Russell had no prior criminal history. Two months after losing his job, Russell initiated two Internet chat-room conversations with a police officer who identified herself as a 13-year-old girl. During the second chat, Russell performed a sex act via webcam and invited the girl to have sex with him. Russell drove to the address the girl gave him, emailed to say he had arrived, and was arrested. Russell pleaded guilty to one count of travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct and was sentenced to imprisonment and 30 years of supervised release. A special condition of supervised release specified that Russell could not possess or use a computer for any reason. In searching for post-release employment, Russell found that computer use was required for filling out most job applications and even occupations that were not highly technological involved computer use. Russell challenged the computer restriction as substantively unreasonable.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, J.)
Concurrence (Henderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.